IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New No, really not
There are lots of old white men who are more vociferous in their beliefs. The problem is that the more carefully-spoken ones who wield the institutional power decided to put one of the raving loons in front of their party.
--

Drew
New ~Concur, nice catch: it's the deception-planners who deserve the most obloquy, of whatever age
These KNOW they are lying /spinning but constantly buffer the fact: I Am ..a Rat in Rat's clothing..
and no-mistake.

Could this be ingrained as a toddler? He hit me First, Mom!
We are so fucking malleable ..on the broad Way --> towards adult insouciance-for-life :-/
     not posturing or gotchas, embedded reporting inside portland cthouse and embedded outside as well - (boxley) - (21)
         They don't want a solution, they want an excuse -NT - (drook) - (20)
             which side? or both? -NT - (boxley) - (19)
                 Trying not to knee jerk and assume - (drook) - (18)
                     you have folks inside the courthouse whose "mission" such as it is - (boxley) - (17)
                         This wasn't about the feds until they started playing Gestapo - (drook) - (16)
                             from the article I posted it did not seem like they were playing gestapo -NT - (boxley) - (15)
                                 Did the AP embed a reporter with the teams cruising in unmarked vans and disappearing people? -NT - (drook) - (14)
                                     nope, there is a missing persons list in portland? -NT - (boxley) - (13)
                                         The first round was catch-and-release. That makes it ok? -NT - (drook) - (12)
                                             so where did they "disappear" to? if it was to a jail then in front of a judge that not ok? -NT - (boxley) - (11)
                                                 No judge. - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                                                     so we are going to be like canada then - (boxley) - (3)
                                                         Are you implying that makes it OK? -NT - (drook) - (2)
                                                             nope -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                 Then WTF *I*S* your argument? If you have one, make it -- otherwise, STFU. - (CRConrad)
                                                 precedent - (lincoln) - (5)
                                                     From August 2004 to June 2015 trump wasnt president then, thats why not much concern until now -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                                         The protests aren't about Trump -NT - (drook) - (3)
                                                             True re many--but he's assurely the gigundo-Example of 'Why-we-Fight', (some: for decades). -NT - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                                 No, really not - (drook) - (1)
                                                                     ~Concur, nice catch: it's the deception-planners who deserve the most obloquy, of whatever age - (Ashton)

I'll let that picture pass...
70 ms